User talk:Chadlupkes
Hello Chad. Welcome to the Campaigns Wikia! I'm glad you found it. Our mission is for this wiki to be a central meeting ground for everyone who believes it is time for politics to become more participatory. We're at the start of an era of net-driven participatory politics and I'm glad you're here to help with that. If you've not yet signed up for the mailing list, I encourage you to join the conversation there. I hope you can help with linking this wiki together with some of the other political wikis that you've been working on. Feel free to contact me with any problems. We'd love it if you could blog about this wiki and continue to edit here and encourage others to do the same. Angela (talk) 04:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC) Thanks for volunteering to help admin this wiki. Angela (talk) 13:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC) 2006:July, August, September closing votes Time to close it up? I started the ones that start today, but an admin should probably be the one to declare it closed, and you all seem to be watching this page. --whosawhatsis? 01:24, 25 September 2006 (UTC) :I'll give it to the end of the 25th UTC. Thanks for the reminder, and all your work on these. Chadlupkes 01:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC) ::Three more are ready to go. I removed them from votes in progress, but an admin should officially do the final tally. --whosawhatsis? 00:11, 1 October 2006 (UTC) ::Another three are ready to go, and another one has an hour left. --whosawhatsis? 23:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC) ::Civility is overdue to be closed and the next batch closes at the end of the day. This batch includes the category policies, and Lou has renewed his threat of vandalism if CatP passes, so be on the lookout. --whosawhatsis? 00:11, 9 October 2006 (UTC) polls The polls nearly always have more votes than the confirmation section, and since they have to be recorded in that area to count, the poll feature is really useless. You think we should get rid of it? That would have the added benefit of allowing us to put the information at the top into a template (the poll feature doesn't seem to be template-friendly). --whosawhatsis? 22:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC) :We should probably change the language to reflect the fact that poll votes will not be counted in the final tally, but I don't know that we should actually get rid of them. People just need to understand that they need to put a signed statement for their vote to be counted. Chadlupkes 03:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC) ::I think that having the poll box there that won't be counted creates more problems than it solves, and the rest of the information there could be put into a template that would only need the ending date as a variable if it wasn't there. --whosawhatsis? 03:33, 29 September 2006 (UTC) :::So until we get a way to determine who is voting in the poll, it's useless. That's too bad. I agree that we shouldn't use it for any further votes until this is fixed. If you think they should be removed from the current votes, get buyoff from Waldsen and Jfingers, and go ahead and remove them. Chadlupkes 03:46, 29 September 2006 (UTC) ::::Well, they both seem to have this page on their watchlists, so we'll see what they think. --whosawhatsis? 04:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC) Please Read Please read this so that we can all work together. Jfing[[Wikipedia:User:Jfingers88/Esperanza|'e']]rs88 01:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Hi Chad. I got your message; thanks for calling me in. Here's my position: If he does it again, he's gone. I made a huge effort to understand his position on SSMcat for a really long time. I managed to get some people against me for erasing the Cat:Civil rights, even when I would be the first to say SSM is a civil right. Now he's gone too far. I told him I would block him inmediately, but I'll respect Jim's attempt at a civilized discussion. I hope you agree... --ШΔLÐSΣИ 01:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC) :On what grounds? I have followed Wikia policies to the letter. You can't just ban people before you don't like them. You actually need a reason. Lou franklin ::I'm not going to discuss with you about this. I will block you if I see your childish side get a hold of you again. --ШΔLÐSΣИ 01:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Re: policy flood I dont think policy discussions is a mistake, it is just a big problem. Look what is happening to your state's legislation, you must be a lawyer to understand it! The same is here with our policies, understanding and standarizing a policies maze requires skills and capabilities that not all people have. Some people must try hard to become lawyers, while others are born to be. I think we should try to find some common standards, agree with these standards, then make them as simple as possible for the "non lawyers" to understand them. And of course the less policies we have the better. But no policy discussion at all, or leting someone to decide the policies on behalf of the others, this is also a mistake, isnt it? Iasson 16:13, 13 October 2006 (UTC) :Lessons learned, I suppose. I'm having a bit of trouble keeping up with your ideas since you have so many edits. But that's ok. I'll take a closer look after the weekend. Chadlupkes 20:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC) October 13-15 I'll be gone over the next few days. FYI. Chadlupkes 20:32, 13 October 2006 (UTC) Suggestion for dealing with policy discussions... I know people have been talking around issues like voting "feeling premature" and I know I've felt like I'd rather be talking a lot before leaping into votes... and votes happen on "fast schedules" compared to wiki issues that I've seen require weeks and months to slowly evolve on talk pages when the talk pages are isolated and getting "an opinion a month". Anyway, I've been trying an experiment over on the WikiIndex (which is a wiki for documenting all the wikis that exist) in facillitating discussion. I thought you might like to check it out to see if it would be useful here. I've found it eye opening to try to document the "discussions happening in the nooks and crannies of the wiki" in a way that makes them all visible to each other... anyway, you might want to check out http://wikiindex.com/Template:CategoryDiscussions to see a method for getting suggestions to "gel" that doesn't use "formally voting" so much. Maybe parts of this are applicable somehow? I'm thinking a useful way to use this would be to use templates like this to "accrete discussions" and as the templates build up you structure them, find commonalities, and then maybe remove some common discussions from "all over the wiki and on the template" into a single page that establishes a general "suggestion" for how to resolve certain kinds of issues that are known to come up in practice "out in the nooks and crannies". Just thought it might be useful :-) - JenniferForUnity 07:14, 20 October 2006 (UTC) :It took me a bit to realize what you are trying to build, but then I got it. This is basically a template that can be brought into any other page that links to similar discussions. So if there was a policy discussion about a particular question happening on multiple pages, a template could be created and placed around each discussion that would link to different parts of the discussion throughout the wiki so we didn't have to do as much moving around and losing the page histories. I like the idea! Let's see how it works on talk pages for a bit as we get a feeling for it, then maybe we could use it for some point-counterpoint links on issue pages. Thanks for the concept! Chadlupkes 13:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC) Proposal Please weigh in on a proposal I am making to Campaigns Wikia! Arbitration Board Proposal Wikizach 18:22, 29 October 2006 (UTC) Survey Ok. Wikizach 20:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC) IP Page creation Is there a way to prevent IP addresses from making new pages? I know WP has it set up that way. IPs have made a bunch of spam pages (sometimes repeatedly) such as , which I just redeleted. Even if you don't know how to stop IPs from (re)making new pages, I bet you could contact someone who can. Thanks, Chad. Jfing[[Wikipedia:User:Jfingers88/Esperanza|'e']]rs88 13:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC) :The problem is that such a ban would be for the entire site. Next time let's just create a redirect to the home page and put some protection on it. Chadlupkes 14:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC) ::That doesn't solve the problem. I know that a ban like that would be for the entire site; that was my entire point. I was just giving that one page as an example. We could have a page where IPs could request pages to be created (as on WP) because we don't want badly named, random pages popping up all over the place. Jfing[[Wikipedia:User:Jfingers88/Esperanza|'e']]rs88 03:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC) :::How often does it actually happen, though? If it's more than we can handle as admins, then we should look to other options. But right now it doesn't seem to be too bad. Chadlupkes 22:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Closing up the US Chad, I've been really busy for the past couple weeks. I was wondering if you and the other editors ever put some closure on the US election pages that are scattered around the site. If not, let me know and I'll help do the necessary cleanup and other stuff. Jfing[[Wikipedia:User:Jfingers88/Esperanza|'e']]rs88 04:55, 20 November 2006 (UTC) :It will take a while to clean up. My recommendation is that we provide links to whatever Wikipedia pages are being used for elections in the past, and start working on elections in the future. Chadlupkes 21:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC) !?So, what's in your head?! I would like to have one essay in favor and against the Arbitration Board proposal. I believe that if it passes, if would change many things. What do you think? Wikizach 23:15, 27 November 2006 (UTC) :Do you mean like a Tabbed pro/con section? I think a perspectives tab would do the same, and might work better. Please post a request for comments on the mailing list and spread the word in the blogosphere. Chadlupkes 21:22, 28 November 2006 (UTC) ::How do I sumbit something to the mailing list? Wikizach 22:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC) :::Nevermind. Wikizach 22:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Actually, it just sent me a message saying it was rejected. Wikizach 22:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC) Sounds like a good suggestion. RE: http://campaigns.wikia.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ALobbyingMentor&diff=20544&oldid=20542. Sounds like a good idea. I don't really know how the Campaigns wikipedia works. --LobbyingMentor 00:51, 7 December 2006 (UTC) Comment It is less important what your take on this or another political issue is. It is more important for others to know why you take this or other stand. Could you write in two sentences the reasons behind your political choices? Keeping it into two sentences is important, because - as old people used to say - if someone cannot present his point in two sentences, that person is lying or does not know what he is taking about. From my personal experience, I remember that when applying this rule to myself, I changed my views many times when forced to explain in two sentences reasons behind them. --HAK 00:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC) :Two sentances, eh? :1. I believe that people are basically good, and need opportunity to reach their potential. :2. I believe that as a global society, we must work towards more cooperation and community, rather than more competition and individualism. :Does that work? Chadlupkes 00:43, 9 December 2006 (UTC) ::Good. Let me tell the message I received ::1. You believe that an individual is not responsible for his or her success in life. ::2. Your positive goals are foggy as you define them by vague, wishful thinking terms like “cooperation” and “community”. ::The idea behind my original posting was to find out your reasoning behind political choices you made. I believe that “two sentences” approach is the best method to expose inconsistencies in given political standing.--HAK 01:14, 9 December 2006 (UTC) :::1. Success does not depend exclusively on individual responsibility, but also on opportunity (I would also add circumstance). :::2. I'm not sure I understand your point here, HAK. Any reasonable long term goal for something as complex as human society must be vague. My impression is that this point is more an attack than an rational argument. --ШΔLÐSΣИ 01:26, 9 December 2006 (UTC) ::::Answering to the attack comment. I am trying here a method of discussion http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method that did not work too well for its inventor either http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates. ::::Socrates said: "life without examination is not worth living". ::::Not all of us at this forum can be right all the time on all the issues. Maybe I am missing something; however, for me the whole sense of this exercise is in proving others wrong, and being ready to accept my errors as well. In other words, unless I feel that I can prove someone wrong, I do not see any reason to open my mouth. The same, I expect to be attacked as well. BTW, what is wrong with this approach?--HAK 05:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC) :::::LOL! Absolutely nothing. Some people are protective of friends, that's all. I understand the Socratic method, and welcome it. The point is to question everything. I do think it's a good topic for the Forums, though, so I'm going to copy/move it there. Chadlupkes 20:50, 9 December 2006 (UTC) Contact Oops, I'll fix that e-mail problem now. --CocoaZen 22:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC) Autodetection is not working? You said here that autodetection is not working. what do you mean by autodetection? Do Template:Approvalvote or Template:proposal have some kind of autodetection (explain...), or is this autodetection something more internal? Iasson 11:37, 2 January 2007 (UTC) :Just that it took a few minutes for template changes to occur. Meaning that I changed a variable within a template, and the resulting change I expected to see didn't occur immediately. No big deal. Chadlupkes 14:39, 2 January 2007 (UTC) :Template:proposal automatically detects whether the Approval Vote subpage exists, and changes its text slightly if it does to alert the user that the vote is in progress. --whosawhatsis? 22:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)